22nd A

22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time A


Introduction: In today's readings we hear of two men, Jeremiah and
Peter who are struggling with difficult parts of being a follower of God .
The Gospel reading is a contrasting balance with the Peter
of last Sunday's Gospel who professes Jesus as: You are the Christ the
Son of the living God. Jesus then designated Peter as the Rock on
whom he would build his church.


HOMILY:
In Today's Gospel we heard the first of three predictions of the
Passion that are found in Matthew's Gospel. The idea that Jesus must go
up to Jerusalem to suffer much and be condemned to death was difficult
for them to accept. After each prediction there is a response of Jesus’ followers, and a teaching of Jesus.
After the first prediction of the Passion, Peter as the
spokesperson gives words to their dissatisfaction with this idea. “God forbid, Lord ! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
To the second prediction the apostles will respond by asking the
question "who is the most important in the kingdom of heaven?"
After the third prediction the mother of James and John will come
asking that her sons be given the places of honor at the right and left
of Jesus when he comes into his kingdom.
__________________________________________________________________


The apostles idea of the Messiah did not include suffering and
death. They were happy to be commissioned to be followers of Jesus when
he shared with them his power to expel demons and to cure every kind of
infirmity and sickness. Now Jesus introduces the idea that he must
suffer much and be condemned to death. Peter objects to this future for
Jesus.
But Jesus reacts to Peter very strongly. “Get behind me Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does but as human beings do.”


__________________________________________________________________


But these words of Jesus are followed by an even greater challenge
to Peter and to us. If we wish to follow Jesus we must be ready to
meet the same fate he is going to meet. Following Jesus has its cost:
one must go up to Jerusalem.
v. 24 “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” As goes the master, so goes the disciple.
v. 25 Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it. If we deny Jesus, selfishly seek
self fulfillment we will be condemned, no freedom, no happiness. If we die, surrender to God we will know everlasting life, freedom, happiness.
v. 26 all human conceptions of loss and gain have been turned
upside down.
__________________________________________________________________


v. 27 fidelity has its reward: The Son of Man... will repay,
reward, each one according to his conduct.


Jesus prediction for himself included to suffer much, be condemned to
death but it also included rising on the third day. So Jesus
prediction for his followers is also deny self, carry the cross, lose
life but also with the promise to receive recompense according to one's
conduct.
__________________________________________________________________


After the first prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: deny self, carry your cross and lose your
life.

After the second prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us
what we must do to be his followers: Mt. l8:3 if we don't change and come
like little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of God.


After the third prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: Mt. 20: 26,27 “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you, shall be your servant. ...the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Carry our cross, become like little children and serve. How close am I to that model of discipleship?

Jeremiah felt duped by God. He was an object of laughter and everyone mocked him. “The word of the Lord has brought me derision and reproach all the day.” We can identify with Jeremiah’s feelings, “I say to myself, I will not mention him. I will speak in his name no more. But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart. Imprisoned in my bones; I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.” Yet somehow he manages: “But the Lord is with me, like a mighty champion; my persecutors will stumble they will not triumph.” “O Lord of hosts, you who test the just. who probe mind and heart, Let me witness the vengeance you take on them, for to you I have entrusted my cause.”
We too at times wish vengeance. Deception, sorrow and terror have brought the prophet close to the point of despair. He makes it through.
Jeremiah clearly wrestles with God. Have I at times wrestled with God? Have I felt a “fire burning in my heart?” What do I feel is imprisoned in my bones? Has vengeance or forgiveness been more a part of my life?

21 A

21stA Sunday A cycle
Mt. 16:13-20
As Catholics hear this passage they immediately reflect the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation. This is the biblical foundation for the papal office. The Catechism of the Catholic church #881 cites this passage in precisely this vein.
It is important to take this passage in context with the following verses which we will hear next Sunday. Peter is rock but also stumbling block (obstacle). Moments after his great profession, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God,” Jesus would say, “get behind me Satan You are an obstacle (stumbling block) to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Peter’s original understanding of the title, Messiah, was clearly charged with Jewish political, temporal understandings, which Jesus will shortly correct.
This is only the beginning of Peter’s reign. Braggadocio, denials, betrayals, reconciliations, victories, later struggles with Paul and disappointments with his people will follow. I believe these adjectives also describe the history of the Catholic Church.
At the present moment of history for the Catholic Church the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America made these observations in her presidential address for 2008. (from the article of John Allen, NCR)
The papacy is a “gift” of the Catholic church to other Christians, a leading Catholic ecumenist said ..., but it needs “repair” before those other Christians are likely to accept it. Specifically, Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto called for a papacy that’s “less centralized, less authoritarian, and more respectful of the diversity of local churches.”...
. O’Gara is a longtime veteran of ecumenical conversations with a variety of Christian denominations.

Pope John Paul II, O’Gara said, was an “engaging figure” for many Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans, who admired his strong stands on issues such as abortion and war, his commitment to evangelization, and his capacity to project a Christian voice in global debates. At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:
1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.
In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.
Concretely, O’Gara made two suggestions.
First, she suggested remedying what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance. Quoting the theologian Klaus Schatz, she said that primacy is too often treated as a sort of “ersatz infallibility,” so that even routine administration seems like an exercise of infallibility.
Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used by the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.

At times in our life we may ask or be asked, “Who am I to you?” Why does someone ask this? Perhaps the person has been mistreated, neglected, forgotten, ignored, etc. The person perhaps is thinking of a different and deeper type of commitment, such as marriage. The person may simply want loving reassurance. Why do you think Jesus asks this question? What is my answer to Jesus’ question?

20th A

20th A

Matthew 15: 21-28

The story of the Canaanite woman has been characterized in different ways. It would seem to be significant that she is the first woman to speak in Matthew's Gospel. Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes states: “This story is often viewed as a troubling embarrassment. A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus. At first he ignores her. He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.” p. 217 Sharon H.Ringe describes Jesus situation this way: "Jesus seems to be caught with his compassion down." Donald Senior in The Gospel of Matthew states, “The story of the Canaanite woman is a remarkable text...” p. 130 Catholic Worker, Jeff Dietrich, titles his reflection in the Agitator, “Exorcising the Demons from Jesus.” In my opinion Dietrich gives the story an exaggerated interpretation. “She (Canaanite woman) has exorcized Jesus and transformed the entire kingdom project. If it had not been for the Canaanite woman, there would have been no second wilderness feeding to the Gentiles. Because of her, the liberating message of the Kindom would include not just the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but all of the lost sheep, all of the expendable victims of empire...Henceforth there would be no more unclean people, no expendables, no dogs, no excuse for treating anyone as less than human. The legacy of the Canaanite woman continues to this day.” But Dietrich also makes some insightful interpretations.

Bailey’s exploration of the Canaanite woman stresses that a critical component in both the parables of Jesus and the dramatic stories about him is the ever-present community. He states that Jesus pretends indifference. By ignoring the woman’s desperate cries he appears to endorse views toward women with which the disciples were comfortable. “The text can be understood as follows: Jesus is irritated by the disciples’ attitudes regarding women and Gentiles.” This view is in conflict with that of Don Senior and Dietrich. Senior sees Jesus himself emphatically resisting the extension of his mission to the Gentiles. Dietrich sees Jesus as downright rude to the woman and rejecting her plea in a most uncompassionate manner. His interpretation is: Jesus “here shows himself to be filled with the same demons of nationalism and patriarchy that he had just criticized in the religious authorities.” In the quick retort of the woman Dietrich sees Jesus stopped in his tracks, knocked over so to speak. “In a single instant she has exorcised from Jesus, the demons of nationalism, religious righteousness, segregation, and patriarchy. Just as he restored the Gerasene demoniac to his right mind, she has restored Jesus to his right mind.”

In the third chapter of Mark’s Gospel vs. 21 we read, “When his (JESUS’)relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” So to me it is not an exaggerated interpretation to have the Canaanite woman restoring Jesus to his right mind.
Warren Carter raises this point: "The woman is not deterred by Jesus' response. Instead she wittily and bravely recasts Jesus' response. Whereas disciples do not understand Jesus parable ('It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs') she understands this one so well that she recasts it to accomplish her goal." Carter also points out she is showing "great...faith". This is the onlyh time this adjective is used to describe faith in the gospel.
This story is clearly dealing with sexism (not talking to a woman), nationalism and racism (dealing with a Gentile outsider) and patriarchy (superiority of males). In this story Jesus overcomes the ethnic, cultural, political, gender, and religious barriers humans have created. It is clearly a powerful story of the compassion of the boundary breaking Jesus for the woman, her daughter and the disciples.
It seems to me our challenge is to find ourselves in this story. Is the Canaanite woman or some other woman working to exorcize some demon in me?

19th A

19th Sunday of Ordinary Time A

Like Peter, up and down toward Jesus.



INTRODUCTION: Today we hear two contrasting images of God coming to

people. In the first reading we hear of God coming to Elijah not in the

wind, earthquake or fire. God comes in the tiny whispering sound. In

the Gospel we hear the account of Jesus coming to the Apostles walking

on the water. In this passage we encounter the first of three special

additions of Matthew's Gospel concerning the Apostle Peter. 1) Peter

comes to Jesus on the water. (14:28-31) 2) We will hear the second

special section in two weeks. Peter is called the "rock" and given the

power of the keys (16:13-20). 3) Peter is consulted by Jesus about the

paying of the temple tax and is then instructed to take the shekel and

"give it to them for me and for you" (17:24-27).



HOMILY: The divine power of Jesus is stressed in his walking upon the

water. The book of Job describes God (Job 9:8) "He alone stretches out

the heavens and treads upon the crests of the sea." There are many

references to God being the one who opened the way through the waters to

the freedom in the Exodus.

Jesus words to the frightened disciples echo the words naming God in

the book of Exodus. "Get hold of yourselves. It is I. Do not be

afraid."

To the story as told by Mark, Matthew adds the story of Peter.

Peter the consistent spokesman for the disciples in this Gospel, asks to

duplicate Jesus' own dominance over the chaos of the sea. He is able to

do what Jesus does. But as Matthew will do throughout the Gospel, he

likes to pair the disciples' glory with their flaws. Peter frightened

by the power of nature begins to doubt the power of Jesus and begins to

sink. His response is the best instinctive response of the believer:

"Lord save me." "Jesus at once stretched out his hand and caught him."

There is a promise implicit in this reaching out of Jesus. Jesus is the

one ready to grant the prayer of the community who recognizes him as

Lord. Only after taking Peter by the hand does Jesus rebuke him with the

words, "How little faith you have. Why did you falter?" With these

words we have Matthew's description of the disciples. "Men of little

faith." He uses this expression five times of the disciples. For

Matthew the disciple in this life is always caught between faith and

doubt. The disciples attitude is yes...but...

At the end of the story according to Mark's version the disciples

are completely lacking in understanding or faith. Mark adds, "but their

hearts were hardened." But for Matthew, that boat crew images his own

church: buffeted, frightened, but clinging to belief, "men of little

faith". The Matthean disciples (those in the boat: church) bow down in

adoration and profess Jesus' divine sonship. This profession of faith

anticipates Peter's profession at Caesarea Philippi which we will hear

in two weeks.



Lessons: l) Jesus comes to us at unexpected times and in unexpected

ways. 2) Jesus is the one who has the power over the chaos and

evil that the storm represents in the disciples lives and ours.

3) Jesus invites us to come to him. We are like Peter.

4) Jesus is available and wants to give us a helping hand.

5) Like Peter we must cry out to the Lord, Lord Save me.

6) We like Peter are people of some faith that are

challenged to grow from being of "little faith."_

7) Sometimes in reaction to the miraculous presence of

Jesus we are like the disciples in Mark, lacking understanding and

faith. 8) Hopefully we will grow like the disciples in Matthew to

adore and worship Jesus as the Son of God.

18th A

18th Sunday A

Jesus feeding of the crowds according to Matthew.

INTRODUCTION: This Sunday we continue with the Gospel of St. Matthew in chapter 14. We listen to Matthew's account of the multiplication of the loaves. In Matthew's account the feeding follows Jesus response to hearing of John the Baptizer's death. "Now when Jesus heard this he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place/wilderness by himself". This is the fifth time in this gospel that withdrawal follows aggression from imperial power.

HOMILY: The miracle of feeding the five thousand is one of the few

miracles that is found in all four Gospels.

This account of the feeding would have triggered in Matthew's

hearers a number of other biblical stories. Our text says that when

Jesus heard of the death of John the Baptist, "he withdrew to a deserted

place by himself." When the disciples speak to him they say, "this is a

deserted place." In Exodus chapter 16 Moses was involved in feeding the

people with manna in the desert.

In the second book of Kings the great prophet Elisha multiplied food

for the hungry. He fed 100 men. So this passage looks back to the past.

Matthew is drawing out of his storeroom both the new and the old.

Matthew in telling this story stays close to the story as found in

Mark but he does have some significant changes. OMITS: In Mark's account

the disciples seem to rebuke Jesus for his suggesting that they feed the

people: "Do you want us to go and spend two hundred silver coins on

bread in order to feed them?" (Mark 6:37) Matthew drops this

inappropriate reference to the purse and money. ADDITION: In Matthew

Jesus says, "There is no need for them to disperse. Give them something

to eat yourselves." This change heightens the sovereign control of

Jesus. He knows what he will do. He involves the disciples. The

disciples reply, "All we have here are five loaves and two fish." This

reply fits precisely into Matthew's theology of discipleship. Without

Jesus, what they have is insufficient. Jesus ignores their objection and

issues another order involving the disciples. ADDITION: "Bring them

here." The main act is performed by Jesus alone. But then Jesus

involves the disciples again. "...gave the loaves to the disciples,

(ADDITION): who in turn gave them to the people."

We cannot hear the words used of Jesus action (taking, looking up,

breaking) (blessed and gave) without thinking of the Eucharist. In fact

one of our Eucharistic prayers transfers the action of "looking up" into

the institution account. If we compare Matthew's institution of the

Eucharist account we find many similar words. (26:26) Unlike Mk.

Matthew stresses the Eucharistic reference still further by (OMISSION)

omitting any action of Jesus as regards the fish. Matthew keeps the

reference to the collection of the fragments which also has Eucharistic

overtones. But he drops the reference to the fish when he talks about

the collection of fragments left over.

Jesus takes control as the host of the meal. The contrast with Herod's banquet (14:6-11) is stark. Warren Carter, "Whereas Herod and the elite trade in manipulation, immorality and death, Jesus' meal includes the crowds, promotes their well-being with healing the sick and supplying adequate food, and anticipates God's different future. God's new creation and empire, in which there is abundance for all."

Matthew makes his final ADDITION at the end of the story when he

increases the size of the miracle by adding to the five thousand, "not

counting women and children."

Matthew's account not only looks back to the past with Moses and

Elisha, but also looks to the future, he anticipates the Eucharist. The

Eucharist in turn anticipates the final banquet in the kingdom (Mt.

26:29) Hopes for the Messianic kingdom were painted as a lavish feast

with limitless food and drink (e.g. Is 25:6) In the story we hear that

"all those present ate their fill." Matthew increases the number of

those fed by saying that the five thousand did not count women and

children. We also hear of abundance, "The fragments which remained, when

gathered up, filled twelve baskets."

Lessons for us:

l) Without Jesus what we have is insufficient.

2) If we rely upon Jesus and his power, we will have

what we need to minister to others.

3) We are called to bring what we have to Jesus and

to allow him to direct us in the use of these things.

4) We are called to be involved in the ministry of

Jesus.

5) When we gather to celebrate the Eucharist we are

reminded of Jesus great ability to nourish us. Ours is a God of

generosity and abundance.

17th A

17th Sunday of Ordinary time A.
Continued: The Kingdom of heaven is like....

Introduction: This Sunday we hear the last three parables of this
parable discourse, chapter l3. The parables that we will hear are those
of the treasure, the pearl and the net. The Gospel passage concludes
with some words about a person learned in the kingdom.

HOMILY:
The first two parables belong to Matthew's special tradition, and
with them he shifts for a moment the emphasis of the chapter. The
preceding parables have been concerned with the triumphant growth of the
Kingdom in spite of resistance, and with the necessity of patience until
the final judgment. In these two similar parables Matthew introduces
the themes of (l) overwhelming joy at the unexpected discoveries; (2)
the unparalleled value of the Kingdom of heaven; and (3) the willingness
of the finder to sacrifice all in order to possess the Kingdom.


1st parable: treasure: Here the finder is a person who happens on
the treasure accidentally. The discovery is accidental. The parable
stresses that he entered the venture with "joy" and risked everything he
owned in order to acquire the treasure which he had discovered.
Sometimes today an Egyptian village boy will decide to sell his
ancestral plot to buy a taxi. He hopes to get rich taking tourists
around to see the ancient monuments. Such decisions cause an uproar in
the village, where land is still the most important thing a peasant can
have. The common view is that any parting with one's land is courting
disaster. Imagine Jesus' story on the scale of the village--where no
behavior goes unnoticed or uncommented upon. The man's action is not
trivial even though he does have the motive of the buried treasure. To
gain the field, he has had to part with the very substance and security
of his life. ... The story presents a striking image of a case in
which a person is willing to really change everything about his life.
Thus it can be seen as a positive affirmation of the power of the
presence of God to transform our lives. The man responds to an
unexpected discovery. That discovery made it possible for him to launch
out beyond the socially ingrained securities of his life.



2nd parable: treasure: Here the finder is a seeker. He has
traveled in search of fine pearls. In the second parable the man's
joy is not mentioned but he also is willing to sacrifice everything to
purchase the valuable pearl. One need not consider the joy mentioned in
the first parable secondary. Both men surrender all they possess for
the prizes they have found. This story seems to intensify the risk-
taking attitude of the previous story. The rule of God does not permit
one to "play it safe."

Both of these parables cause us to reflect on the cost of
discipleship. Both sell all that they have to buy the field or the
pearl. What must we get rid of in order to gain the kingdom? What is
in the way of our attaining the kingdom? To think of this in economic
terms is wrong. We can't buy the kingdom although many people think
they can buy God with promises, sacrifices, or even donations of money.
3rd parable: net: This parable stresses the final judgment. In
many ways it is a companion to the parable of the wheat and weeds. We
have the mixture of the good and bad in the kingdom. We have the apocalyptic language, "End of the world." Angels. The separation of the wicked and the just, the fiery furnace and "wail and grind their teeth."

The Passage ends with a question about the disciples understanding.
There is an unspoken comparison with the lack of understanding of the
crowds and the Jewish leaders. "Every scribe who is learned in the
reign of God is like..." This verse is important from several points of
view. First, in its immediate context, it is a kind of parable that
concludes the chapter of seven other parables. It is a parable about
making parables, a metaparable that invites the reader/hearer to enter
the parabolic process through creating new parables to add to the ones
just given. Second, the verse suggests the existence and activity of
Christian scribes in Matthew's church. Third, the verse has rightly
been taken as the autobiography or pen portrait of the evangelist. It
would also fit Paul. "who can bring from his store both the new and the
old." One should notice the telling order of words; contrary to natural
expectations, the "new" is placed before the "old." Both shed light on
each other, but the defining norm is the new, the fulfillment. The
ideal is put before us to be this kind of scribe.

16th A

16th Sunday A

The kingdom of heaven is like....

INTRODUCTION: This Sunday we continue to hear from the Parable

Discourse of Matthew's chapter 13. The structure of this Sunday's

reading is similar to last Sunday's: 1) parables to the crowds, 2)

comment on the reasons for parables, 3) private instruction to the

disciples giving an explanation of the parable of the wheat and darnel.



HOMILY: This Sunday we hear three parables of Jesus: wheat and weeds,

mustard seed, and leaven. In the first of the three we notice that this

time the problem is not the ground on which it falls, but on the kind of

seed and on the distinction between the sowers. In the second, the size

of the seed is stressed. In the third it is not about seeds used for

planting but about seeds used for food, namely meal.



1st parable: Up until the parousia the church will always be a

mixed bag of good and evil. The advice is tolerance and patience until

God renders his definitive decision. The householder does not retaliate

against his enemy. He even uses the weeds as fuel to burn. Drawing

good out of evil. The parable concerns the proper attitude toward the

mixed reception accorded to Jesus. * Confusion will clarify.



2nd parable: contrast between the small, unpromising beginnings of

the kingdom and its full, triumphant expansion. Yet not the

triumphalness of a cedar but a mustard tree. * Littleness grows.



3rd parable: uses a well known symbol in an unusual way. Yeast or

leaven was for Jews and Christians a symbol of corruption. Perhaps

because Jesus gathers round him the unclean sinners of the land, he

prefers to use yeast as a symbol of the kingdom which comes in small,

hidden, and perhaps despised beginnings. The amount of flour is

ridiculously large, another example of hyperbole to stress the vast

success of the kingdom. * The hidden be seen.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



v. 36 The return of Jesus to the house signals his break with the

crowds and symbolically his break with Israel. It is a TURNING POINT IN

THE GOSPEL. It is not an accident that this rupture occurs halfway

through the gospel. Henceforth Israel will show greater and greater

hostility, and Jesus will turn more and more to his disciples, to devote

himself to their formation.



Explanation of the Parable: While the parable was concerned with the

coexistence of good and evil persons in the Kingdom, the explanation

focuses on the harvesting at the end of time. In vs. 40-43 the language

is highly apocalyptic, looks to the last judgement: images of end of the

world, harvesting, the fiery furnace, reaping angels and weeping and

gnashing of teeth (intense distress and rage). It looks to the latter

parable of the separation of the sheep and goats at last judgement.

This language has the effect of shifting the focus from patient

tolerance in the present to the spectacular events that will constitute

the end of the world. It is God's business to decide who belongs to the

kingdom. He will reward the just and cast evildoers into the fiery

furnace.